Winning despite Anae's coaching

[cougarapologist]

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?
Examples:
1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!
2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.
3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.

This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'

Am I wrong?

[StatsCougar]

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?
Examples:
1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!
2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.
3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.

This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'

Am I wrong?

On at least your first point, you are wrong. From Mitch Juergens:

"I honestly didn't think that the ball was coming to me, we had a receiver on a 10-yard route to secure the first down," Juergens said. "But when he stepped up in the pocket that route was covered so he looked and saw me open and threw it up."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=36541583&nid=49 ... id=queue-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BoiseBYU]

I'm no expert, but I kind of like that Anae did not give up on the run game. Many a coach seeing what happened for 2+ Quarters would've folded and just gone pass. I think that would have made it much harder for the team to turn things around. Anae kept at it and in the end it worked out pretty well methinks.

[billbillbillbill]

I think what we saw was an offensive coordinator who had a freshman quarterback going against a pretty good defense. I wondered why there were few crossing routes being used but that is more dangerous than throws to the outside in less coverage. I bet we see the playbook open up in the coming weeks as Tanner gains confidence and Anae gains confidence in Tanner.

[stuckinbig10country]

1. False. Houk was at the sticks and double covered. Juergen's original route was a 15 yard crossing pattern that he broke towards the end zone on the scramble drill (as instructed).

2. Not really. The QB has a lot to do with how the throws are distributed. Any running play that isn't a direct down hill run is not working right now, and I'd like to maybe see them replaced by screens, but it's a way to keep the defense from being able to just sprint up field as fast as they can.

3. Sometimes the coaches on the other side do their jobs too and start taking away effective things.

I'm not the biggest Anae fan, but I think your analysis is pretty far off. The offensive scheme is pretty sound. The QB hasn't caught up to the nuances of it yet. New QBs have a tendency to do one of two things when things are going too fast. They either check down immediately to the short receiver in the pattern, or they chuck it long. We've got a QB that likes the deep ball.

Is Anae too conservative at times? Sure. But punting and living to fight another day isn't the worst strategy for part of a game.

[hawkwing]

I felt it was good OC play calling. You have a freshman QB who has thrown 2 picks, you need to run the ball and establish the run against a very good defense. It worked. BSU wore out. Those defenders don't wear out if they're not defending against the run throughout the entire game.

[Ygridiron4ever]

It was hard to watch in the second and third quarters, and some of those nagging complaints about Anae's play-calling and inability to adjust at half started echoing through my head like the Ghost of Christmas Past. I was becoming dissalutioned.

But clearly the plan, in its entirety, worked......well.

So I have spent a couple days giddy with the win and wondering if Anae's scheme is finally balanced, and matches the talent BYU has on both sides of the scrimmage line.

[jonnylingo]

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?
Examples:
1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!
2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.
3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.

This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'

Am I wrong?

I don't agree with you. Anae is a good offensive coordinator and we won largely because of him.

[SpiffCoug]

But clearly the plan, in its entirety, worked......well.

And in all honesty, this is the only way to look at any game plan - in its entirety.

If you pick and choose what to count and discount you don't get an accurate picture of what actually happened.

[TheDean]

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?
Examples:
1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!
2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.
3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.

This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'

Am I wrong?

No, you are quite correct as for some reason Anae still runs the dive up the middle on first downs and virtually every first down. As well as on 3 and 1 plays either at the goal line or trying to get a first down and as his only play. Had BYU not been bailed out by BSU and the refs BYU would not have scored a TD at the end of the game where BYU had a 1st and 1 or 2 at the goal line and what was the play Anae called every time except for the play in which they scored on when they finally got there?? You guess it a dive up the middle at least 4 times and all were stuffed and had it not been for penalties and the surprise QB sneak BYU wouldn't have scored. The fact is every drive Boise St. stopped BYU on BYU's first down play was a dive up the middle and BYU running game didn't do any thing until they ran running plays to the edge. Anae also reverted to form after the first INT as the next 2 drives were conservative and the first 2 drives after the second INT BYU offense went even more conservative.

Anae needs to have more roll out plays for Mangum as it seems to be his best play as all 3 of his big passes in the BSU game came as was rolling out and the 2 in the Nebraska game were the same way. Granted on most of them he was forced out of the pocket. But it seems to me a designed roll out now and again would be a good call.